Chapter 10 Rogers: Person-Centered Theory 319their goals (Vainio & Daukantaitė, 2015). This means that grit, rather than being a
dogged determination, blind to any costs that might accrue in pursuit of goals, is
only “true” if the goals are consistent with our inner values. These findings suggest
that people should set out to determine what their real values are, and then bring
all their grit to the pursuit of the goals that line up with those values. In doing so,
grit will likely keep them hopeful about the future, give them a sense of meaning
in life, and in the long run bring them real, lasting happiness.
Carl Rogers clearly had keen insight into the human condition, and his ideas
continue to be supported by the most modern research. If you engage in experiences
that are part of your ideal self, you will be led to pursuits that are more engaging,
enriching, interesting, and rewarding (Schwartz & Waterman, 2006). But what if you
don’t know what specific pursuits you will find the most rewarding? Taken together,
these various lines of research support the idea that we have a built-in system (the
OVP) that will direct us toward fulfilling pursuits even, or, perhaps especially, when
life presents us with stressful challenges. All we have to do is listen to our gut.
Critique of Rogers
How well does Rogerian theory satisfy the six criteria of a useful theory? First,
does it generate research and suggest testable hypotheses? Although Rogerian
theory has produced much research in the realm of psychotherapy and classroom
learning (see Rogers, 1983), it has been only moderately productive outside these
two areas and thus receives only an average rating on its ability to spark research
activity within the general field of personality.
Second, we rate Rogerian theory high on falsifiability. Rogers was one of
only a few theorists who spelled out his theory in an if-then framework, and such
a paradigm lends itself to either confirmation or disconfirmation. His precise lan-
guage facilitated research at the University of Chicago and later at the University
of Wisconsin that exposed his theory of therapy to falsification. Unfortunately,
since Rogers’ death, many humanistically oriented followers have failed to put his
more general theory to test.
Third, does person-centered theory organize knowledge into a meaningful
framework? Although much of the research generated by the theory has been
limited to interpersonal relations, Rogerian theory nevertheless can be extended to
a relatively wide range of human personality. Rogers’ interests went beyond the
consulting room and included group dynamics, classroom learning, social prob-
lems, and international relations. Therefore, we rate person-centered theory high
on its ability to explain what is currently known about human behavior.
Fourth, how well does person-centered theory serve as a guide for the solution
of practical problems? For the psychotherapist, the answer is unequivocal. To bring
about personality change, the therapist must possess congruence and be able to
demonstrate empathic understanding and unconditional positive regard for the client.
Rogers suggested that these three conditions are both necessary and sufficient to
affect growth in any interpersonal relationship, including those outside of therapy.
Fifth, is person-centered theory internally consistent, with a set of operational
definitions? We rate person-centered theory very high for its consistency and its carefully